LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
  • SMcIntyre
    +3

    This is why turnover is extremely low. We're not electing leaders who are willing to compromise to get things done any longer, and gridlock is the inevitable result.

    Your problem isn't with the process, it's with the people. As I said before, either find better candidates, or do a better job of selling your message.

     

    No, but they're also prohibited from cruel and unusual punishment. It says so in the Eighth Amendment. Even disobeying orders, committing espionage, compromising national security and endangering the lives of anyone doesn't strip her of that right.

    Nothing that's being done to her even comes close to qualifying as an Eighth Amendment violation . Cruel & Unusual punishment has a set legal standard, with four basic elements:

    The punishment can't be arbitrary. She was granted due process, afforded legal representation, and was tried and convicted at Court Martial.

    The punishment must be used commonly. Prison is the standard form of punishment for criminal activity in the U.S., and solitary confinement is a standard form of punishment in every prison in the country.

    The punishment can't be unnecessarily harsh. Given that she was facing a maximum of 90 years in prison, there is nothing at all harsh about 35 years, especially considering she'll be eligible for parole in another 8 years. Likewise, there is nothing unnecessarily harsh about solitary confinement. When you have someone who is already in prison, who still won't obey the rules, and is a danger to themselves and others, then solitary confinement is absolutely necessary.

    The punishment can't have been rejected by society. Both prison and solitary confinement are widely accepted by society.

     

    Such empathy. Does landing in prison automatically strip a convict of any right to dignity? Is American justice supposed to focus more on justice or vengeance? Because this sounds more like vengeance.

    This didn't happen to her because she landed in prison. This happened to her because, once again, she decided that rules don't apply to her. She decided that she could do as she pleased. Clearly, she was wrong.

    • spaceghoti
      +6

      Your problem isn't with the process, it's with the people. As I said before, either find better candidates, or do a better job of selling your message.

      Since I don't have control over the candidates running for office or who votes for candidates outside my district, the former isn't really an option. I've done what I can to support organizations supporting good candidates, but I don't have the sort of resources like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers to buy elections. Those people have also learned the value of a good disinformation program which is why we're still struggling with bullshit like climate change denialism.

      Nothing that's being done to her even comes close to qualifying as an Eighth Amendment violation.

      The practice of indefinite solitary confinement is being challenged as a method of torture.

      This didn't happen to her because she landed in prison. This happened to her because, once again, she decided that rules don't apply to her. She decided that she could do as she pleased. Clearly, she was wrong.

      Going to prison happened to her because she broke the law, yes. Her treatment in prison is a result of people feeling like she doesn't deserve any rights as a prisoner. That's not justice, that's vengeance.

    • SMcIntyre
      +3
      @spaceghoti -

      Since I don't have control over the candidates running for office or who votes for candidates outside my district, the former isn't really an option.

      No one ever said changing the country was easy. If you want easy, go get a paper route. Real change is never easy, and damn sure isn't quick. After the pilgrims hit Plymouth Rock, it took almost another 160 years before America told England to piss off, and we fought a war to do it. It was over 130 years after the abolitionist movement started in the U.S. before slavery ended, and we fought a war to do that to. There was over a decade and a half between Brown v. The Board of Education and the Civil Rights Act, and while it wasn't a war, it certainly had plenty of blood and a body count. It was almost half a century between the Stonewall Inn and Obergefell, and that too was a less than peaceful process. Change is absolutely possible, but only for those willing to put in the work.

       

      I've done what I can to support organizations supporting good candidates, but I don't have the sort of resources like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers to buy elections.

      Or George Soros and Tom Steyer (careful, your bias is showing).

       

      Those people have also learned the value of a good disinformation program which is why we're still struggling with bullshit like climate change denialism.

      We still have to deal with bullshit like climate denial for the same reason we still have organized religion: Cognitive Dissonance. People would rather invent comforting illusions rather than face uncomfortable facts.

       

      The practice of indefinite solitary confinement is being challenged as a method of torture.

      And if/when the courts decide that it shouldn't be used anymore then she'll be placed back in a regular cell. But I wouldn't hold your breath on that one, because solitary confinement isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

       

      Her treatment in prison is a result of people feeling like she doesn't deserve any rights as a prisoner. That's not justice, that's vengeance.

      Nope, still wrong. Her treatment is a result of her breaking the rules. This isn't Sandals® Kansas, it's a Federal Prison. There are things you're not allowed to have, and certain ways you're expected to behave. She chose to have contraband in her cell. She chose to fight with the guards when they tried to remove her from her cell. Those were her choices- nobody else's, and now she has to live with the consequences.